Assessment of land use impact on biodiversity

Proposal of a new methodology exemplified with forestry operations in Norway
Land Use in LCA (Subject Editor: Llorenç Milà i Canals)

Abstract

Goal, Scope and Background

Land use and changes in land use have a significant impact on biodiversity. Still, there is no agreed upon methodology for how this impact should be assessed and included in LCA. This paper presents a methodology for including land use impact on biodiversity in Life Cycle Impact Assessment and provides a case example from forestry operations in Norway.

Materials and Methods

The methodology presented applies indirect assessments of biodiversity based on knowledge on what key factors are important for maintaining biodiversity in a boreal forest. These are used to construct an index on Conditions for Maintained Biodiversity. In addition the intrinsic quality of an area is assessed on the basis of the Ecosystem Scarcity and Ecosystem Vulnerability. Globally available data on ecoregions are here used. In addition the spatial and temporal impact is assessed based on the annual regrowth of the forest.

Results

In the case study different forestry management regimes for the ecoregions ‘Scandinavian and Russian taiga’ and Scandinavian coastal coniferous forests’ are compared. Based on the proposed methodology, the intrinsic quality difference of the two ecoregions is estimated to approximately 40% and the reduction in impact on biodiversity from land use by adopting new and realistic targets for the key factor ‘areas set aside’ is estimated to 20%.

Discussion

The paper presents a new methodology for how land use impacts on biodiversity can be included in LCA. The methodology is based upon a proposed framework and the results from the case study show that the methodology is capable to distinguish between different forestry management regimes and forestry in different ecoregions. The data used are readily available, but more research is needed to scale the proposed key factors and also include new key factors. It is at present not possible to validate the size of the differences.

Conclusions

The importance of land use impact on biodiversity is of major importance and should be included in LCIA. The proposed methodology is developed within a framework developed within the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative and provides a methodology demonstrated to be able to distinguish between both similar activities in different ecoregions and different management practices within one ecoregion.

Recommendations and Perspectives

More work is needed to establish a methodology for land use impact on biodiversity in LCIA and due to the importance this should be a prioritized task. The proposed application of indirect indicators to assess impact on biodiversity from land use changes in LCIA should be further explored, but the proposed methodology can already be applied with globally available data on ecoregions. The challenge is to develop sound key factors for the relevant ecosystems.

Keywords

Biodiversity ecoregion forestry key factors land use impacts land quality LCA LCIA 

References

  1. Aarts BGW, Nienhuis PH (1999): Ecological sustainability and biodiversity. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 6, 89–102Google Scholar
  2. Angelstam P (1998): Towards a logic for assessing biodiversity in boreal forest. In: Bachmann P, Köhl M, Päivinen R (eds), Assessment of Biodiversity for Improved Forest Planning. Proceedings of the Conference on Assessment of Biodiversity for Improved Forest Planning, 7–11 October 1996, held in Monte Verità, Switzerland. Kluwer Academic Publisher, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. Angelstam P (2001): Measurement and assessment of biodiversity components in boreal forest. In: Merra A, Finér L, Kaila S, Karjalainen T, Mali J, Pajula T, Korhonen M (eds), Life cycle assessment on forestry and forest products. EUR 19858. European Commission, Directorate-Genaral for ResearchGoogle Scholar
  4. Begon M, Harper LJ, Townsend CR (1986): Ecology. Individuals, populations and communities. Blackwell, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Bengtsson J, Nilsson SG, Franc A, Menozzi P (2000): Biodiversity, disturbances, acosystem function and managament of European forest. Forest Ecology and Management 132, 39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett LT, Adams MA (2004): Assessment of ecological effects due to forest harvesting: Approaches and statistical issues. Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 585–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bongers T (1990): The maturity index: An ecological measure of environmental disturbance based on nematode species composition. Oecologia 83, 14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapin FS III, Sala OE, Burke IC, Grime JP, Hooper DU, Lauenroth WK, Lombard A, Mooney HA, Mosier AR, Naeem S, Pacala SW, Roy J, Steffen WL, Tilman D (1998): Ecosystem consequences of changing biodiversity — Experimental evidence and a research agenda for the future. BioScience 48, 45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapin FS III, Zavaleta ES, Eviner VT, Naylor RT, Vitousek PM, Reynolds HL, Hooper DU, Lavorel S, Sala OE, Hobbie SE, Mack MC, Diaz S (2000): Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405, 234–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clay K (2003): Parasites lost. Nature 421, 585–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Connell JH (1978): Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199, 1302–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cushman JH, Dirzo R, Janetos AC, Lubchenco L, Mooney HA, Sala OE (1995): Conclusions. In: Heywood VH (ed), Global Biodiversity Assessment. UNEP/Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 446–452Google Scholar
  13. Decocq G, Aubert M, Dupont F, Alard D, Saguez R, Wattez-Franger A, de Foucault B, Delelis-Dusollier A, Bardat J (2004): Plant diversity in a managed temperate deciduous forest: Understorey response to two silvicultural systems. Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 1065–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diaz S, Cabido M (2001): Vive la difference: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16, 646–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Didham RK, Ghazoul J, Stork NE, Davis AD (1996): Insects in fragmented forests: a functional approach. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11, 255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dobson AP, Rodriguez JP, Roberts WM, Wilcove DS (1997): Geographic distribution of endangered species in the United States. Science 275, 550–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duffy DC, Meier AJ (1992): Do Appalachian herbaceous understories ever recover from clearcutting? Conservation Biology 6, 196–2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eppinga MB, Rietkerk M, Dekker SC, de Ruiter PC (2006): Accumulation of local pathogens: A new hypothesis to explain exotic plant invasions. Oikos 114, 168–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Framstad E, Økland B, Bendiksen E, Bakkestuen V, Blom H, Brandrud TE (2002): Assessment of forest production in Norway. NINA fagrapport 54. Norwegian Institute of Nature Research, Trondheim (in Norwegian with English summary)Google Scholar
  20. Fremstad E (1997): Vegetasjonstyper i Norge (Vegetation types in Norway). NINA Temahefte 12. Norwegian Institute of Nature Research, Trondheim (in Norwegian)Google Scholar
  21. Fremstad E, Moen A (2001): Threatened vegetation types in Norway. Rapport botanisk serie 2001-4. Norwegian University of Science and Technology/Muesum of Natural History and Archaeology, Trondheim (in Norwegian with English summary)Google Scholar
  22. Gaston KJ (1996): Species richness: Measure and measurement. In: Gaston KJ (ed), Biodiversity: A biology of numbers and difference. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 77–113Google Scholar
  23. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001): The Eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology report. Third edition. PRé Consultans, Amersfoort 〈www.pre.nl〉Google Scholar
  24. Hanski I, Walsh M (2004): How much, how to? Practical tools for forest conservation. Bird Life European Forest Task Force, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansson L (2000): Indicators of biodiversity: recent approaches and some general suggestions. Technical Report No. 1 (updated version 14 April 2000), Bear project 〈http://www.algonet.se/:_bear/
  26. Hengeveld R, Edwards PJ, Duffield SJ (1995): Biodiversity from an ecological perspective. In: Heywood VH (ed), Global Biodiversity Assessment. UNEP/Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 88–106Google Scholar
  27. Hilmo O, Holien H (2002): Epiphytic lichen response to the edge environment in a boreal Picea abies forest in central Norway. The Bryologist 105, 48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hobbelstad K, Gobakken T, Swärd J (2004): Evaluering av Levende Skog. Tilstand og utvikling i norsk skog vurdert i forhold til enkelte standarder. NIJOS rapport 19/04Google Scholar
  29. Hytteborn H, Maslov AA, Nazimova DI, Rysin LP (2005): Boreal forests of Eurasia. In: Andersson F (ed), Coniferous forests of the world. Ecosystems of the world 6. Elsevier, pp 23–99Google Scholar
  30. ISO 14040 (2006): Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework. Second edition. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  31. ISO 14044 (2006): Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  32. Köllner T (2000): Species-pool effect potentials (SPEP) as a yardstick to evaluate land-use impacts on biodiversity. Journal of Cleaner Production 8, 293–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kyläkorpi L, Rydgren B, Ellegård A, Miliander S, Grusell E (2005): The botope method 2005. A method to assess the impact of land use on biodiversity. Vattenfall, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  34. Kålås JA, Viken Å, Bakken T (2006): 2006 Norwegian Red List. Artsdatabanken, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  35. Larsson TB (ed) (2001): Biodiversity evaluation tools for European forests. Ecological Bulletins 50, Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Lawton JH, Bignell DE, Bolton B, Bloemers GF, Eggleton P, Hammond PM, Hodda M, Holt RD, Larsen TB, Mawdsley NA, Stork NE, Srivastava DS, Watt AD (1998): Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Science 391, 72–76Google Scholar
  37. Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Steen B (eds) (2002): Impact assessment of resources and land use. In: Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich EG, Hofstetter P, Jolliet O, Klöpffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Olsen SI, Pennington DW, Potting J, Steen B (eds), Life cycle impact assessment: Striving towards best practice. Setac Press, Pensacola, Florida, pp 11–64Google Scholar
  38. Lippke B, Comnick J, Johnson LR (2005): Environmental performance index for the forest. Wood and Fiber Science 37 (Corrim Special Issue) 149–155Google Scholar
  39. Living Forests (1998): The Living Forests standards for sustainable forest management in Norway. 〈http://www.levendeskog.no/pdf/green.pdf
  40. MacArthur RH, Wilson OE (1967): The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  41. Michelsen O, Solli C, Strømman AH (in preparation): Environmental impact and added value in forestry operations in NorwayGoogle Scholar
  42. Milà i Canals L, Clift R, Basson L, Hansen Y, Brandão M (2006): Expert Workshop on Land Use Impacts in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). 12–13 June 2006, Guildford, Surrey (UK). Int J LCA 11, 363–368Google Scholar
  43. Milà i Canals L, Bauer C, Depestele J, Dubreuil A, Freiermuth Knuchel R, Gaillard G, Michelsen O, Müller-Wenk R, Rydgren B (2007): Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. Int J LCA 12, 5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Molau U, Alatalo JM (1998): Responses of subarctic-alpine plant communities to simulated environmental change: Biodiversity of bryophytes, lichens, and vascular plants. Ambio 27, 322–359Google Scholar
  45. Müller-Wenk R (1998): Land use — The main threat to species. How to include land use in LCA. IWÖ — Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 64. Universität St. Gallen, St. GallenGoogle Scholar
  46. Olson DM, Dinerstein E (1998): The Global 200: A representation approach to conserving the earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conservation Biology 12, 502–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, Underwood EC, D’amico JD, Itoua I, Strand HE, Morrison JC, Loucks CJ, Allnutt TF, Ricketts TH, Kura Y, Lamoreux JF, Wettemgel WW, Hedao P, Kassem KR (2001): Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on earth. BioScience 51, 933–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peter D, Krokowski K, Bresky J, Petterssn B, Bradley M, Woodtli H, Nehm F (1998): LCA graphic paper and print products (part 1, long version). Infras AG (Zürich), Axel Springer Verlag AG (Hamburg), Stora (Falun, Viersen) and Canfor (Vancouver)Google Scholar
  49. Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JH, Broks TM (1995): The future of biodiversity. Science 269, 347–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Prendergast JR, Quinn RM, Lawton JH, Eversham BC, Gibbons DW (1993): Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365, 335–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Påhlsson L (ed) (1998): Vegetationstyper i Norden. (Vegetation types in the Nordic countries). TemaNord 1998:510. Nordic Council of Ministers, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  52. Sala OE, Chapin FS III, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M, LeRoy Poff N, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M, Wall DH (2000): Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100. Science 287, 1770–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991): Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: A review. Conservation Biology 5, 18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schemske DW, Husband BC, Ruckelshaus MH, Goodwillie C, Parker IM, Bishop JG (1994): Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 75, 584–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scholes RJ, Biggs R (2005): A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 434, 45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schweinle J (ed), Doka G, Hillier B, Kaila S, Köllner T, Kreißig J, Muys B, Quijano JG, Salpakivi-Salomaa P, Swan G, Wessman H (2002): The assessment of environmental impacts caused by land use in the life cycle assessment of forestry and forest products. Final report of working group 2 ‘Land use’ of COST Action E9 ‘Life cycle assessment of forestry and forest products’. Mitteilungen der Bundesforschungsanstalt für Forstund Holzwirtschaft Nr. 209, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  57. Seppälä J, Melanen M, Jouttijärvi T, Kauppi L, Leikola N (1998): Forest industry and the environment: A life cycle assessment study from Finland. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 23, 87–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Siitonen J (2001): Forest management, coarse wood debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecological Bulletins 49, 11–41Google Scholar
  59. Stokland JN, Eriksen R, Tomter SM, Korhonen K, Tomppo E, Rajaniemi S, Söderberg U, Toet H, Riis-Nielsen T (2003): Forest biodiversity indicators in the Nordic countries. Status based on national forest inventories. TemaNord 2003:514. Nordic Council of Ministers, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  60. Sverdrup-Tygeson A, Framstad E, Svarstad H (2004): Environmental revolution in the forest? An assessment of ‘Living Forests’ in the certification of Norwegian forestry. NINA Oppdragsmelding 849. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Trondheim (in Norwegian with English summary)Google Scholar
  61. The Swedish FSC Council (2000): Svensk FSC-standard för certifiering av skogsbruk. 〈http://www.fsc-sverige.org/Portals/1/Dokument/Fsc-sv.pdf_1.pdf〉 (in Swedish)
  62. Tilman D (1982): Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  63. Udo de Haes HA (2006): How to approach land use in LCIA or, how to avoid the Cinderella effect? Comments on ‘Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA’. Int J LCA 11, 219–221Google Scholar
  64. UNEP — United Nations Environment Programme (1992): Convention on Biological Diversity. Text and annexes. UNEP, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  65. UNEP — United Nations Environment Programme (2002): Global Environmental Outlook 3. UNEP/Earthscan Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  66. Weidema BP, Lindeijer E (2001): Physical impacts of land use in product life cycle assessment. Final report of the EURENVIRON-LCAGAPS subproject on land use. Depertment of Manufacturing Engeneering and Managament, Technical University of Denmark, LyngbyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Economics and Technology ManagementNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations